“When you do things right, people won’t be sure that you have done anything at all.”

–

God (in Futurama)

===

Well.

Think what you want and say what you want to say about Kissinger … but the opening quote is awesome <although, geologically speaking, it may not be truly accurate>.

In our quest for recognition as a leader many business people, and leaders in general, seemingly get shoved <on seemingly a daily basis> into some absurd universe where everyone judges you <mostly on some absurd views of ‘being noticed is what matters’ or ‘shine bright like a diamond‘>. I say that because this means thinking of yourself as a piece of coal seems … well … quite underwhelming and quite ‘unleaderly’ <I made that word up>.

Uhm.

But.

One of the most frustrating things you learn early on in a management career path is that you do not get credit for what you are expected to do. And maybe what makes this most frustrating is that this lesson applies to a crisis as well as the most mundane everyday grind responsibilities.

But.

The thing is as you gain more and more responsibility you learn that this is actually a good thing.

People like reliability.

People like consistency.

People like a foundation of quiet competent leadership.

People like you doing what you are supposed to do <with little fanfare>.

This is a lesson learned early on in a management career … and you can tell the leaders who <a> did not learn it or <b> saw the lesson but lack self-confidence … because they … well … ignore the lesson and exhibit ongoing aggravating self promotion <even on the things they are expected to do>.

That said.

This doesn’t mean you aren’t tempted to take a moment or two to point out, sometimes in some fairly loud messaging, that you want some credit for what you are doing.

This is the ‘dance.’

The management & leader “credit dance.’ I call it a dance because every good leader knows they have to do some self-public relations and, yet, they don’t want to be seen as doing any overt self-public relations.

===============

“The price of greatness is responsibility.”

—–

Winston Churchill

=======

Being a great leader is all about doing your job and doing the right things at the right time … and <I imagine> figuring out how to actually tell people that you did the right things at the right time. This means not being seen a as blowing your own horn or being some narcissistic attention seeking, credit seeking asshat but rather one who understands it really isn’t about gaining credit or accolades but rather reassuring people that the right things, the good things, just get done under your watch.

I would note that reassurance is a powerful tool. It is powerful because doing things right isn’t about small … nor large … but if you do it right … really right … people will not really be sure that you’ve done anything at all and, yet, feel reassured that you are there.

Now.

In today’s bombastic world it can actually become a bad thing if no one notices. Why? <insert a ‘huh?!?’ here> because someone else at the exact same time is telling everyone what they did … and yes … unfortunately … often the squeaky wheel does get the grease.

Aw heck.

The truth is that the value is never in the credit. And leaders know that. And we everyday schmucks need to remind ourselves of that more often.

—-

“I alone cannot change the world, but I can cast a stone across the waters to create many ripples.”

————

Leaders know that the little things can matter and that just delivering upon what you are supposed to do really matters <a lot>.

A subtle touch can create the needed ripples. Doing what you are supposed to do insures the right ripples are always … well … rippling.

Good leaders know you can be the initiator, instigator or implementer … or even all of them … and it doesn’t really matter.

I would note that within the realm of doing what you are supposed to do about the only thing that can truly diminish ‘greatness of simple doing’ is not accepting responsibility – for the bad and the good and all that it takes to get to either place.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out that what I just stated is ‘character’.

Leaders don’t lead by asking or telling people to follow it most often happens by doing the shit you are supposed to do really well.

I know. I know. That doesn’t sound “great” but greatness really cannot be achieved without it.

Oh.

This kind of suggests that greatness is a contradiction.

Let’s use Winston as an example.

Huge ego. MASSIVE ego. Charismatic speaker. Maybe one of the greatest orators of all time. Made some huge mistakes. HUGE mistakes. …. But humble in his responsibility. He permitted the people to get credit for success and strength and what needed to be done … all the while doing what he as supposed to be doing.

He was vocal, and sincere, on issues and the people of Great Britain getting credit.

All despite his ego.

Great leadership reflects a unique balance of ego and humility. Ego to effectively lead and humility to be effectively followed.

I would imagine those with the greatest character reside somewhere on the line between those two things.

I would imagine those with the greatest character reside somewhere in between not getting credit for what they are supposed to do and actually being acknowledged for enabling greater greatness.

Well.

I know it isn’t popular to say this but most of the best things in Life, and leadership, are found in the unspectacular:

The best people more often than not go unseen and unnoticed by the majority.

The best moments more often than not go unseen until looking back.

Just as perfection is most often found in the imperfections … spectacular is most often found in the unspectacular. And, yes, doing what you are supposed to do is unspectacular.

But I would argue the spectacular would never ever happen if the ‘supposed to do’ shit never happened.

In the end.

Great leaders are often judged by what you don’t see them doing. This also means great leaders are often judged by what they feel comfortable remaining silent about … by what they don’t say about what they are supposed to do and supposed to be.

I would be remiss if I didn’t point out this is a little more difficult than it may appear.

It is a little more difficult because a great leader does have to have some ego and some higher level of confidence and, therefore, some positive affirmation kind of helps to put some well needed oxygen back into the confidence balloon.

It takes a awhile to learn you don’t have to ask for oxygen or even try and fill it yourself … well … at least good leaders learn that … the bad, insecure ones never do.

“Possibly,” Jace said, “but you do have to admit that the majority of things are.”

―

Cassandra Clare

===========

“Who knows himself a braggart, let him fear this, for it will come to pass that every braggart shall be found an ass.”

―

William Shakespeare

=====================

“Or, rather, let us be more simple and less vain.”

―

Jean-Jacques Rousseau

============

So.

We all have worked with assholes.

We all have also most likely worked with egotistical assholes.

And, unfortunately, we all have most likely worked with competent egotistical assholes. This is the particular type of asshole who actually kind of knows their shit, is overly satisfied with their competence, tells everyone who good they are and says all of this no matter what has actually happened <good or bad>or whether it is actually reflective of reality.

I have never really worked for anyone like this <fortunately> but I do know from experience that these people particularly suck to work with because, yeah, they don’t completely suck from a functional professional standpoint … so you cannot completely ignore them and, even worse, they may actually even have some specific skill you may need at some point.

What makes it suck for you is that they have some serious flaws <not that they would ever admit it> and that they will take credit for anything and everything they can, they will multiply wins in exaggerated results and effort and diminish, if not even blame others, for lack of successes.

They are, and always will be, the biggest self-promoters <assholes> you will ever encounter.

They are, and always will be, the biggest selective users of facts and specifics to showcase whatever self-style & strength they want to portray <their own assholedness>.

They are a legend in their own mind <and an asshole to the rest of us>.

But, at their best, they are not only competent but can actually contribute.

These assholes are tougher to deal with and manage than the incompetent. You can ignore the incompetent <or the ‘less than useful’ or the “beyond their sell-by date’ people>.

Once again … I have never had to report to an incompetent blowhard <or an incompetent non blowhard> but I have had several “senior people who were beyond their sell-by date” who you never permitted in a meeting by themselves <for fear of what they would say or promise> and you always tried to diplomatically curb their responsibilities and impact.

They were not always truly assholes or incompetent just ‘less than desired usefulness’ for the business needs.

But the competent blowhards are a bear to deal with.

You are constantly sitting there thinking … “Jesus … wouldn’t it be terrific to be able to reap the rewards without putting up with the blowhard bullshit?”

I actually found an article suggesting some tips on how you can “harness the superb results these folks generate without having to put up with their acting out.”

Whew.

That article was off base. You cannot harness a blowhard … competent or incompetent.

An egotistical competent person is … well … an egotistical <typically “narcissistic”> competent blowhard asshole and there is little to get around that.

You just figure out how to get around them, use them the best you can and take them head on strategically <knowing you cannot take them head on all the time>.

To be clear.

I am using “asshole” loosely here. As someone noted somewhere … the term “asshole” is also used as a euphemistic reference to people whom we classify as “disagreeable.”

A blowhard is disagreeable but so can a lot of good people who aren’t narcissistic. Shit. Contrarians can portray some asshole tendencies <see myself as a prime example> but not all contrarians are fucking egotistical self-promoting blowhards.

I could argue that since each of us is an asshole to someone the term is always relative. In other words, one person’s asshole can be another person’s hero.

Therefore … in my eyes … it takes a lot of effort to be a competent asshole.

Incompetent assholes don’t know that they are assholes.

Competent assholes KNOW that they are assholes.

I am writing this because, unfortunately, this is a conversation we all have in business. Egomaniac assholes are in every business. We have to deal with them and the reality is that sometimes they are in senior management.

They may actually be competent but they are manipulative, obsessive, and aggravatingly boastful and far too often bullies.

They may actually have some aspects of competence and use it to throw anyone around them who also shows signs of threatening competence under the bus at any given opportunity.

They actually do it under the guise of “creating a competitive always improving environment” when they are really simply insecure assholes who want to diminish anyone around them so they look bigger & better.

—————————————–

Hayakawa: Use the Right Word:

By definition ‘boast’ suggests a self-important and tasteless pointing out of one’s own successes.

Occasionally the word can refer to self-congratulation for a victory not yet won. Brag intensifies the note of tastelessness in boast, suggesting limitless conceit and, possibly, inaccuracy of the claims being made – bragging about imaginary exploits. And then there is ‘crowing’ which suggests a noisy or vociferous bragging of an extremely offensive kind. And ‘gloating’? Gloating is an intensification of crow – although it need not be verbal and sometimes suggests taunting someone that one has bested.

By definition: egomania

…. an obsessive preoccupation with one’s self and applies to someone who follows their own ungoverned impulses and is possessed by delusions of personal greatness and feels a lack of appreciation.

——————————————

Look.

I don’t mind a manager with a healthy sense of ego, but the true competent blowhards are best to avoid if possible because they have elements of toxicity.

In Toxic Workers , a new Harvard Business School working paper, Michael Housman and Dylan Minor look at the paradox of “superstar” workers who outperform their colleagues by 2:1 or more, but who are “toxic” — awful to work with and be around.

The connection between toxicity and productivity has been validated in several studies, but the question that Housman and Minor set out to answer is, “are 1%, superstar workers worth the trouble they cause in the workplace?”

Using a clever empirical methodology, they demonstrate that, basically, you shouldn’t work with assholes. It’s better to hire two average employees than to keep one “superstar” on the payroll, once you factor in the disruption that your talented jerk wreaks on their colleagues.

Simplistically the blowhards distort things. They exaggerate good, diminish bad, consistently use a made up unique formula of uncertainties & lack of clarity, offer alternatives <facts & universes> and serve to only create difficulties in exactly describing what is, and isn’t, actually happening.

While accomplishing some things, which if discussed like a normal human being everyone would be fine with, the abnormal human being says shit like: “I don’t think there’s ever been anyone who in this short period of time has done what I’ve done.”

Uhm.

Unfortunately for whoever says this there is typically some actual proof that someone somewhere has actually achieved a lot more. But that really doesn’t matter to this type of person … all they have to do is do enough and make it look hopeful enough that a group of employees ignore the hyperbole and focus on the fact someone has done something.

By the way.

What makes this truly toxic is the fact the competent non-blowhards around this person start ignoring the blowhard and just doing their own thing <and his because even more toxic to a business the more senior the blowhard is>.

I imagine my point here is that we all know someone at work whose biggest fan is himself/herself. They exaggerate all their contributions and diminish & deflect any blame or negatives.

Those people make it really difficult to compliment. Our first instinct is to try and deflate <or ‘right-size’> accomplishments so that even good gets diminished so it doesn’t get exaggerated. Unfortunately his sometimes means that even when credit is due the person has just made it hard for us to WANT to give them credit.

=============

“Until the lion learns how to write, every story will glorify the hunter.”

—

African proverb

===

Regardless.

We all know some of these people who do not recognize that they are one of those people.

Particularly in business.

They aren’t psychopaths and they aren’t the kind of assholes that are raging assholes … these are just the assholes oblivious to their assholedness. Suffice it to say far and away the number one way they justify their existence is “the end justifies the means.”

“But I made the numbers.”

“We won.”

“We finished.”

All the while ignoring the carnage left behind.

The carnage can be lost employees, pissed off employees, tired <emotionally and physically> employees, angry peers and disappointed or abused partners.

<lost>

They couldn’t keep up or they were not good enough <good they are gone … we weed out those who can’t keep up>.

<pissed off>

You can’t always pamper people to get them across the finish line <they like me because they know it is all done with ‘tough love’>.

<tired>

I pushed them beyond what they thought they could do <they won’t be angry once they see how I helped them realize their potential>.

<peers>

The other managers don’t recognize what it takes to get it done <my project was more important and they won’t be angry once they see the result and how the team responded …or … I am showing them how it should be done>.

<partners>

They have good intentions but I need to keep them focused on our priorities and objectives and needs <they work for us and need us more than we need them>.

Those are the tricks of the trade of the competent blowhards.

Regardless.

Yes.

Success does matter.

No.

I am not suggesting we shouldn’t value ‘the kill’ or even ‘ability to effectively stalk the prey’ in business.

But … Yes.

I do believe how you kill or stalk matters.

Look.

Blowhards can try and convince us of competence in a variety of ways … they can showcase fulfilling promises which does not show the actions of a skilled CEO but rather a bumbling overwhelmed CEO focused on showing action to try and cover up incompetence.

I say that because even bumbling incompetent CEO’s can do some things right in a flurry of ‘doing shit.’ I say that because even a semi-incoherent senior business person can do some things right AND justify it in some fairly creative common sense sounding ways.

The following is something I found somewhere <I cannot find where> from someone who actually responded to “being an asshole manager” which showcase how a competent asshole business person can quite easily justify their actions.

Please note that there is a strong thread of truly competent thoughts.

Please note that if I were so inclined I could go back through every point and slice out the slightly self-righteous aspects and showcase how you can actually be competent and not an asshole AND not pamper your employees’ every whim … but I will not.

=======

…. not sure how you define asshole, but I suppose being blunt, efficient, and unable to cater to every employee’s wants (not needs) goes a long way. I go out of my way to reward my best employees, give them the resources they need, approve their time off outside of work, etc. I take a pedagogical approach to my role, passing knowledge to my employees that will help them advance their careers (and make my job easier). Yet, I’m still the asshole.

Here are some reasons I’m an asshole manager:

I’m responsible for making a diverse group of people with varying job roles work together. Try coming up with one rule or guideline that makes everyone happy.

Some employees only work as hard as they have to. And they hate it when you ask them to do more.

Some employees (often the ones who only do the bare minimum) expect to be promoted just for showing up. You can print them a crystal clear roadmap to success within your company, and they’ll still paddle along, doing nothing to distinguish themselves, then ask to be supervisor.

Ingratitude is the status quo. Once, everyone in the department got tiny raises (three figures). The reason they were tiny is because we shifted our fiscal year; there was a tiny pool for compensation increases. Because someone had left, I was able to get every one of my employees a raise larger than the 1.5% average everyone in the company had to adhere to. I know it’s not a lot, but I put in a lot of effort to make their tiny raises a little less tiny. The fact they got more than the average was clearly explained to them. The response: the raises “were a slap in the face.” Fine. Next time, we’ll spend the money on a clever fucking food truck half of you won’t like.

As a manager, much of your employee’s well-being (compensation, promotion, career growth) depends on you. At the same time, this isn’t a day care center; it’s a business, and my job is to get my employees to do their jobs. That’s a hell of burden, and it makes me less likely to be everyone’s buddy when instead I have to be fair and compassionate, but also directive and efficient.

In the same vein, employees know how much power you have over things like compensation, so they’re never, ever totally honest with you. Personality problems I constantly hear about third-hand magically disappear when I’m leading from the floor. Also, employees will admit to making small mistakes, which upon five seconds of investigation, turn out to be related to much larger mistakes they say nothing about.

Paranoia is the status quo. I can’t explain to employee #1 why I wrote employee #2 up. That would be unprofessional, and would betray the disciplined employee’s trust. Yet if it appears on the surface that I’m being unfair, then the conspiracy theorists kick in and all of a sudden I’m playing favorites. Example: Two employees don’t show up to work. One is written up. The first employee has a documented record of excessively calling in sick, and misses work yet again, without notice. The other, who has an exemplary attendance record, has a family emergency and calls into work in advance. The former would get written up before the latter every time. Employees aren’t privy to these details, so they form their own conclusions baked in resentment. And God help you if the employee who incorrectly thinks they’re being treated unfairly is a woman or a minority.

You can’t listen to music with the N-word in it. You can’t describe the hot girl you met. You can’t tell off-color jokes, listen to Howard Stern, or share clips of that R-rated stand-up comedian. I’m going to write you up for breaking those rules. You may even get fired. The alternative is me losing my job because I tolerated a hostile work environment. So yes, we’re a friendly, down-to-earth, casual company…until tone-deaf legal standards force us to behave otherwise.

Millennials, calling into work because you’re stressed isn’t a good excuse. Especially if it happens exclusively on Fridays and Mondays. I’m going to call you out on it.

When HR makes a decision to fire you, I’m the one who breaks the news. When finance says we can’t afford that tool to make your job easier, I’m the one who communicates the message. Part of my job is to be the face of the company to you. Your bridge to the massive bureaucracy. Of course I’m going to sound like an asshole to you. And no, I don’t have time to make you feel better about it. So put my picture on the dartboard. Slander me if it makes you feel better about things. As long as you’re doing your job and I’m doing my best to treat you fairly and humanely, the rest is your problem.

============

So.

That sounded fairly reasonable, didn’t it?

I chuckled a little and stopped myself from going back and showing the author where they were … well … as asshole <but still pointing out their competence>.

Being a manager and a leader is not easy. If it were then … well … not only could anyone be one anyone could actually be a good one.

I shared the 10 thoughts above because the difference between an asshole leader, and a competent non asshole leader, can often be defined in shades … not vivid colors <although the result often can be viewed in vivid displays of rich & royal hues>.

And that vivid comparison truly comes to Life if you are viewing a competent arrogant blowhard.

I was an okay manager & leader. I did some things okay and some things not so okay. I can honestly say I did get better at it as time went on and I am much better now, and how I discuss leadership, than I was even 5 years ago.

I am much better at identifying incompetence and the characteristics one should look at in defining and judging managers and leaders than I was at the beginning of my career <at the beginning it was just “boy, that feel and looks wrong” and now it is “let me point out the five things which are wrong that makes it feel wrong.”

What I can tell you is that you don’t need me to point out an arrogant, narcissistic, semi-competent blowhard. You can see them a mile away and even if you just “feel it” you are more than likely right.

An asshole is an asshole. Once you have seen an asshole and felt what it is like to be around an asshole … well … you will never forget the feeling.

==================

“Besides, nowadays, almost all capable people are terribly afraid of being ridiculous, and are miserable because of it.”

Leading is a big job. It carries big responsibilities and big burdens. You have to be big enough in some way <skills, charisma, character, smarts, etc.> to stay above the organization and employees. And I say “above” because part of leading is being able to see above the heads of everyone so that you can lead and align and step in when & where appropriate.

Above is not dominance per se just that you maintain a dominant position from which you can most effectively & efficiently lead.

Now.

Here is what any good leader knows … you don’t have to be big to … well … be big.

Heck. You don’t even have to act ‘big.’

In addition.

A good leader can leave the comfort of the ‘throne’, i.e. the trappings of the ‘bigness’ –the natural ‘dominance’ that comes with a title — and still remain above even when stepping down from all those things.

However.

Not everyone is a good leader. And not every leader is particularly good at navigating the natural doubts <am I doing the right thing, am I doing the best thing, am I doing the thing I should be doing, etc.> that come along with being a leader. By the way … any good leader has some doubts on occasion … it keeps them grounded.

Regardless.

What that means is there will inevitably be business people who fear looking small. And they protect their illusions of ‘bigness’, or being bigly, mainly in several ways:

They diminish everyone they can in the attempt to make others as small as they can so that they look bigger no matter the comparison

They find a ‘safe space’ in which they place their metaphorical throne and make everyone come to them <this is kind of like the boss who purposefully has their desk built slightly higher and the chairs facing the desk slightly lower to insure they maintain a physical dominant position>

They avoid, as much as possible, one-on-one interactions with anyone their own size <unless they can control the environment>.

They ground themselves in platitudes under the guise of “flexibility & adaptability” so they can avoid having to defend anything specific with anyone who could diminish their bigness

Well.

Why I decided to write about this is … uhm … day in and day out Donald J Trump offers us in the business world reminders of ineffective leadership style and the characteristics of insecure leadership.

And the number one characteristic of insecure leadership is the inability to step down and still stay above.

Insecure leaders are extremely hesitant, if not completely resistant, to leaving their ‘dominant position.’

Let me explain ‘dominant position’ because it can sound bad <and it is mainly meant to express a position of authority>.

A CEO or a president is clearly in a dominant position by title and by responsibility and, in most cases, by some larger skill that got them to where they are. A true ‘dominant position’ <let’s call it “authority”> combines all aspects.

Therefore the person in the dominant position combines substance & style. And this is where insecurity steps in … because if a leader has any true doubts with regard to their ‘dominant position’ – mostly doubts on their substance — they start exhibiting some insecure characteristics.

They will dial up their style aspects to cloak any substance deficiencies and become excruciatingly careful with regard to how they interact with other people.

But the one I thought about today was “stepping down.’

Let me explain.

I heard Donald J say the other day “they should call us to participate.” In other words … they need to come to me <thereby establishing some aspect of subservience and feeds the sense of ‘dominant position.’

This was not a one-off comment.

He does this … every … frickin’ … day.

Trump never “goes to people” nor does he unite by inserting himself into any opposing groups <people who may not agree with him> opening himself up to say “let me be part of what you want.” I cannot envision him ever going to opposition and suggesting he wanted to work with them <they have to come to him>.

His whole leadership style is driven by an insecurity of ‘dominant position’ and he fears stepping down from his position because he fears it will expose the fact he isn’t really above anyone other than in title.

In other words … he fears looking small <or ‘not bigly’>.

And therein lies the larger lesson.

Good leaders don’t become smaller when they step down or go to people rather than make people go to them. They know there are no ‘little people’ but rather only big responsibilities of which everyone has.

Little people are little wherever they go … even if they just sit in the corner office.

Unfortunately for us a little leader knows this … and doesn’t know this.

What I mean by that is they can sense their littleness therefore they go out of their way to stay within whatever cocoon of ‘bigness trappings’ to encourage the belief they have that they are actually big. And, yet, they don’t know this because they tend to have an oversized view of themselves <every should come to me attitude>.

They see themselves through a fairly warped view of self-relevance … “everyone else becomes more relevant by being around me therefore they become bigger in my bigness.” And that partially outlines their main fear.

Loss of relevance.

Anyone who becomes more relevant than them is a danger. Loss of power, the illusion of or real, is the danger.

What that all means is that an insecure leader more often than not lives in a “you need to come to me, call me or ask me” mentality.

Foreign dignitaries come to visit him <and he does not visit them>.

Democrats should call me instead of being obstructionists.

People need to visit him at the White House <or Mar a Lago>.

He never works with people or offers to meet them.

He treats everyone as if they should be subservient to him and if they do not meet that desire he is dismissive or even attacks them as ‘obstructionist.’

Let me be clear.

No sane business leader <in this generation> has this attitude.

You cannot.

You cannot because you know many of the people working for you are actually smarter than you and a shitload more just may know something you do not know.

You cannot because oftentimes your peers, who actually report to you, may actually be better than you at some things.

You cannot because you know that good people never want to feel subservient but rather want to feel being a key part of overall success.

Most of those who lead have learned these things not by attempting to learn to be ‘above’ but rather by learning how to lead. And you learn that mostly by getting into ‘the game’ and realizing you can play anywhere at any time. I know that I took an advertising job as a young newly promoted VP in NYC not out of any desire to be the best but because I was curious. I was curious to see if I could “play in the NYC advertising game.” I didn’t need to be the best nor did I desire to dominate … I just wanted to see if I could play.

I can tell you that once you become comfortable with knowing you can play at the biggest level and the lowest level you have a fighting chance to become a leader.

Look.

We all have numerous character flaws and it is a sad truth the majority of us can’t see them. This is even more difficult in a leadership position because you do naturally become more self-aware of any of the things you are good at and yet also not good at … but you also lean heavily on the things you ‘perceive’ got you where you are today.

I say that because insecure leaders are relatively hollow on the self-awareness.

Looking at Trump it is easy to see that he grew up thinking he could get away with whatever he wanted. He lived in a bubble in which young, mentally lazy, rich, amoral white men routinely got away with whatever they wanted. These same characteristics are exhibited in his insecure leadership style.

Here is what I know.

Big leaders are big leaders.

And they are big because wherever they go they retain their bigness. That means they need not ‘stay above’ to be big … they can step down … sit in town halls answering questions from real people as well as sit down with people who didn’t vote for you as well as sit down with peers and discuss ideas … and walk away just as big as they entered the room.

Small leaders cannot do those things, therefore, they do not.

I have now given you a way to judge big leaders from small leaders. Judge away. Every leader should be judged … and judged harshly … because … well … they are leaders and that is their burden.

Real fatherhood isn’t anything like a greeting card. We all screw up. Here’s to all the dads out there who show up & try again. #FathersDay

==================================

“I suppose in the end it’s almost too easy to look back and say what you should have done, how you might have changed things. What’s harder – what’s much, much harder – is to accept what you actually did do.”

In a world where we seem to be more and more focused on winning it is nice to step back and maybe realize that many things can be considered a victory other than some simplified “win” … especially for fathers.

How does this sound for what could be considered a ‘win’? Showing up … and showing up again … and then showing up again.

I am not a father but as I have applauded fathers year after year <because most of my father friends are great fathers> I am not sure I have applauded the most simplistic aspect of being a parent – the persistent attempt.

I think this topic matters.

It matters because when asked … I imagine almost every parent can fondly remember “the wins”, even if they are few and far between, with regard to their children. But maybe we should be pointing out the attempts, the persistency of their parenting attempts, rather than just the wins … the victories. And while the victories must be an incredible source of pride <that their attempts in parenting actually paid off in some way> their real pride source of being a parent, a father, is more likely to be found in the persistent attempts.

The persistent attempts? The times you fell short in some way in not only your child’s eyes but also how you may have fallen short in what you believe is the responsibility of parenting, and, yet, you attempt to do what is right the next day or the next time or the next opportunity.

There should be victory found in getting up and trying to do a little better the next time – victory in the attempt.

Look.

All fathers will be a jerk on occasion and, I imagine, some are simply jerks. But all fathers are imperfect. As I noted in a non fathers day post back in 2013 <No Perfect Fathers >. Shit. We all are. And, yet, imperfect or not … 99% of us persist and attempt again.

I will say this.

In our ‘positive reinforcement world’ in which ‘everyone contributes and should be included’ we tend to give out more gold stars than a second grade class.

I sometimes think we give out so many rewards that no one can truly tell who the ‘best of the best’ really are.

Oh.

I will say this except in parenting.

In parenting we have more of a tendency in never giving out a gold star for the attempt but rather solely for some achievement attained.

Therefore there is less positive reinforcement for the attempts and more for the achievements.

Well.

That seems fucked up to me.

====

“Not in the clamor of the crowded street, not in the shouts and applause of the many, but in ourselves, are triumph and defeat.”

–

Longfellow

===============

I am not suggesting fathers need more gold stars or that achievements don’t matter but it seems kind of fucked up to me that being a ‘perfect father’ is somehow always supposed to be attached to some achievements attained by the child.

Similar to my view on many things in life I believe more often than not success should be measured in progress not achievement.

Fathering is the same to me.

And that is why victory in the attempt matters so much. Persistent attempts are metaphorically like being a border collie to your child’s life … herding them attempt by attempt toward some progress path. If you view it that way you will most likely look back at dozens of “wins” in the herding and not just whatever destination you may attain in achievement.

That is most likely the closest I have ever come on fathers day of saying something similar to what the senator said.

And I would suggest ‘victory in the attempt ‘is a derivative of the thought I shared that day.

Fathers have a natural tendency look back at missed opportunities and moments where they failed … and maybe even when they were a jerk.

Maybe they should look back upon all the attempts and … well … think about the fact they showed up. And maybe that is a “win” in and of itself. And they certainly should be viewing attempts within a “37 seconds, used well, is a lifetime.”

It is quite possible this is a Life lesson for all of us, but for today, it is a Father’s Day thought.

Happy Father’s Day <and thank you Ben Sasse for making me sit down and wrote today>.

===================

“America’s about new beginnings, and the end of your story has not been written.

Happy Father’s Day to all the fathers out there who want to show up and try again.”

“There is a construct in computer programming called ‘the infinite loop’ which enables a computer to do what no other physical machine can do – to operate in perpetuity without tiring.

In the same way it doesn’t know exhaustion, it doesn’t know when it’s wrong and it can keep doing the wrong thing over and over without tiring.”

—–

John Maeda

=========

So.

Leading an organization is not like running a race … well … at least it is not like running a sprint.

Okay.

I am being stupid.

It’s not like running a race.

Nothing like it.

It is more like managing the health of a body in which you do want some exercise and you do want some healthy eating and you do want to insure proper amount of sleep.

Suggesting you want to run a business like you are in some marathon is silly and misguided.

It is just as misguided to think about an organization like a machine with gears and moving parts and keeping it well-oiled and full of gas and shit like that.

I say all of that to talk about organizational exhaustion.

If you stay away from silly metaphors about what an organization is, or is not, simplistically you are trying to insure your organization is putting forth a proper amount of effort against the efforts you want it, and need it, to be working against. This is a daily, weekly, monthly and annual leadership objective.

Different leaders have different styles working against this objective but, simplistically, that is the objective.

Now.

HOW you meet this objective typically takes some experience.

What do I mean?

I assume most leaders do not inherently know exactly how to do this … pacing an organization takes some experience and some practice, some mistakes and some successes and then you zero in on how to do it well <or just keep getting better at it>.

Using me as an example … I liked a hard charging group when I got to a team/group management level. And I, personally, would be ecstatic if I didn’t have to sleep and I could go 24/7.

And, in the beginning, that was my vision for my groups.

By the way … in general … good intentions … bad idea.

But what that meant was that I probably learned this lesson, pacing and applying effort appropriately, too slowly <and I most likely will have a bunch of past team members chuckling painfully in agreement>. Going hard charging all the time is not sustainable — you juts have a constantly exhausted group.

That said… in desiring to have hard charging organizations there were certainly some lessons anyone would learn to limit needless organizational exhaustion.

Here are a couple I learned along the way:

I had to be consistent.

It doesn’t get discussed often enough but expectations go both ways. As a leader setting clear expectations is certainly expected <and I will mention that in my second learning> but it really helps an organization if you establish clearly what people can expect of you – behaviorally and attitudinally.

Words surely matter.

Setting expectations surely matter.

Actions surely matter.

But consistency matters above all. No leader is perfect and no leader will make the perfect decisions, let alone good decisions, all the time. Therefore it becomes incredibly important to just be consistent. Your organization, and specifically people, will become better accustomed to where you will be really really good and where you may be slightly off <and they will naturally accommodate both>.

In other words … your consistency actually offers your employees some direction for what they should do. Your best people will assess situations and know where you are consistently most likely right on, know the things you consistently overlook and know where you consistently leave some spaces for them to ‘do their thing.’

Keep some strong threads of consistency.

Threads of consistency permit an organization to not have to think about some things.

There were some really simple tactical things that I could control.

What do you mean <clarity in articulation>

Where are we going <set a visible North Star>

What do you want me to do <pragmatic expectations>

If you could keep these three things solid and not have people milling about talking amongst themselves on these three questions you were staying ahead of the game.

It permits your organization to progress and not be stagnant. It permits your organization to not invest unnecessary energy against those things and apply energy against doing shit.

Of course, a leader doesn’t have to do these things.

Of course, a leader doesn’t do these things at their own peril.

The peril? Exhaustion. frustration. Waste energy.

Not doing these things has an expense to an organization and mostly that is defined by two things – time & energy. I would point out that both of those things are not infinite resources to an organization. I point t out because if they are finite than you better have them available to you when you actually need them.

And that is why I chose to not use an organization as a race metaphor at the beginning but rather an organization as a body metaphor.

Look.

As a leader of larger organization you can hide your misjudgments or poor decisions in a variety of creative ways … mostly by shifting resources from one group to another or have another department assume some different responsibilities or by shifting some people into the work gaps or to buttress the best people who are flagging with some support.

But that is also not sustainable.

The organization gets exhausted doing all that maneuvering … in addition … they get exhausted by you doing that.

I will admit that I got better at this as I moved up in responsibility. And, I will admit, I partially got better at it simply because I had more moving parts, departments and groups to manage. That is because I loved working 24/7 and I thrived with the energy of solving problems and … well … just energy. In a larger organization there is always something going on, some project or problem or initiative somewhere within an organization that needs attention or needs a little ‘push.’ This naturally permitted me to let one part of the organization ‘rest’ while another part of the organization ‘ran.’

Oh.

Think about that a second or two if you will.

What I just suggested is that an organization as a well-rounded circle or the classical myth of a ‘well rounded person’ is … well … simply a myth. In fact … the idea of it creates a false narrative in our heads. As an organization learns and thinks and gains experience it does not expand smoothly but, rather, raggedly. Day after day, despite the fact it may feel like business is a grind or it may even feel too fast <or too slow> an organization is constantly running toward some thought and experience … or … leaping from danger or something disagreeable or some problem or some success and … well … suffice it to say it is anything but balanced.

And it is certainly not creating any smooth well rounded growth.

My main point?

There is no such thing as a well-rounded person and there is no such thing as a well rounded organization. A leader may certainly aspire to create a well-rounded organization but, even at your best, the organization at any given point in time is some shape other than a circle.

The good news is that this means organizations also naturally get excited to explore the edged forays into interesting things and, in parallel, get snagged on the ragged edges of unexplored thoughts or even second guesses with regard to the lack of smoothness in what is happening in departments, groups and efforts … as well as thoughts and growth.

Yes.

I will point out that this is why an organization can feel slightly uncomfortable on occasion as employees, departments and groups wrestle with this discomfort, as well as dealing with the ragged edges constantly poking at everyone, but I will also point out that is why the things I mentioned earlier become even more important –the consistency, the clarity and the lack of chaos.

I will also point out that his kind of ‘uncomfortable’ is okay. Ito a leader it is actually a sign that things are going okay and the organization is not stagnant <and good leaders know how to point out good non-stagnancy to calm uncomfortable>.

All that said.

I can unequivocally state that no organization is successful when needlessly exhausted. They can be tired at the end of the day but exhaustion is a symptom not of ‘a good day’s work’ but rather unnecessary mental stress trying to get things going, understand what to do and what to say and kibitzing over why it is so hard to get what seems like normal shit done.

When an organization is running well … whether the 350 million, 350 or the 35 recognize it … there are many days when the 1, the leader, leaves the office exhausted.

And the one is exhausted despite the fact that 349,999,900 people, 341 people or 34 people went to sleep that day feeling pretty good about their day and their needs & wants & hopes took one step forward that day … and they are a good tired … not needlessly exhausted.

Oh.

Despite the fact the one went to bed exhausted that one will arise the next day fresh because the organization is ready to go again the next day … and not organizationally exhausted.

I will end by pointing out that an exhausted group, an exhausted department or an exhausted organization is the sign of poor leadership. And, most importantly, it is a precursor to signs of inefficiencies and declines in measured productivity.

sometimes quality people follow me and i actually cry and whisper “i’m so sorry you’re going to regret this”

—-

(Source: danny-castellano)

===============

So.

The quote I open with made me think about leading in business … specifically about me as a leader and what I think about those who I was fortunate enough to lead.

If you go online you can find a million articles about what makes a great leader … heck … on how to be a good leader.

That said. In general … if you have to go online to learn how to lead and be a leader … well … you are not a leader.

Look.

I loved leading. I loved being the captain of a team. I loved being the pilot of a ship <pick your trite metaphor here>. But I never assumed that simply because I had a title or was selected to lead that everyone would want to actually follow. This gets trickier once you arrive at some high falutin’ title and responsibility where you cannot hand pick everyone on your team. But maybe it is prior to that high falutin’ position where you earn the most valuable lesson.

Lesson?

I think any leader worth half a shit is humbled by the quality of people who choose to follow.

I think any leader worth half a shit is worried those people will regret that decision at some point.

Yeah. Leading has another side to it … those who elect to follow you. And that is where one of the most important lesson resides. People actually choose to follow you. That said.

I can only comment on this topic from my own perspective.

I do know for sure that it doesn’t matter what type of leader you are <1> if no one follows you will get nowhere fast, and <2> if the wrong people are following you … you will get nowhere fast.

I will admit.

One of the hardest things in the world in business to do is to find people with the same intentions that you have. This becomes important because at some point leading demands motivating in some form or fashion. Me? I don’t think I was ever particularly good at motivating individuals one at a time. The good news with having that weakness is that leading that way is incredibly time intensive so I never did it.

I learned to simply focus on my message. Maybe more importantly … I focused on an ‘attitude’ more than any specific ‘desired behavior.’ I kind of figured that, if I could encourage a certain type of attitude, the behavior would follow. A lot of leaders hated that belief … and still do. They prefer established certain types of behavior and model their leadership within that construct. I did not and it permitted those who chose to follow me to follow a variety of paths … walk in their own shoes … and, yet, still walk within the same attitude construct with the same intentions that I had.

As a result I have worked for and with amazing companies, products & services and people.

I don’t think I did it through any ‘big personality’ <I have seen and met charismatic leaders and I ain’t one> but I always seem to have ‘my community of followers’ who were incredibly loyal to me … and I remained incredibly loyal to them.

Somehow this all permitted me to leverage the naturally scant resources any leader has <time, energy, money, attention> to not only have an effective team & organization but also attract others to come by and join this merry & mad group of followers. Through it all I always looked to create some convergence of my own conviction with the wants & needs of the individuals … and this included even the individuals who I were fairly sure were quite hesitant to follow my lead <and, yes, they exist with any leader>.

I will also admit that I never really thought much about purposefully sharing any real substantive value to the people who elected to follow nor did I attempt to purposefully share any substantive value to people I wanted to have join this merry band. Huh? <say what?>. I never thought about trying to create some compelling message or try and be compelling … I solely focused on my convictions, my attitude & beliefs and … well … I imagine I thought of it as “I have a campfire, come sit down … and I hope you stay <if you want>” and hoped like hell that someone actually wanted to follow that conviction, attitude & set of beliefs <and I never assumed anyone did and was pleasantly surprised when someone did>.

And.

Well.

I was always humbled if someone decided to stay and warm their hands on the campfire.

I never studied on how to be a leader. I never read any books on leadership.

My only mantra was “would I want to follow me” and maintain the behavior and attitudes which would seem like they would make me feel like I was treated with dignity, respect and value <and be my version of interesting & meaningful>.

It may sound odd … but … I figured if I could please me then … heck … some other people would at least be semi-pleased <because I always felt like I was hard to please>.

I certainly wanted to be dynamic beyond my own purpose <and still do> and kind of built that into how I wanted to be as a leader. I am not sure this was representing some grand vision or ‘manifesto’ or even some ‘purpose-driven’ type flag for everyone to follow … but it was more than some personal goals and raises and basic desires of ‘coming into work every day and doing what you need to do.’

I never did anything calculated in my leadership. It almost always resided in attitude.

And I think it allowed me to be me and to let those who decided to follow to emerge in their own way beyond simply daily desires to get shit done.

===

“Become the kind of leader that people would follow voluntarily, even if you had no title or position.

Conduct a personal assessment and ask yourself, ”Would I follow me?”

–

Brian Tracy

====

I absolutely buy the fact that a leader has to give people something they want or need. I don’t care if it is ideas or purpose or productivity <outcomes>. I just don’t buy the fact you can purposefully sit down and create it.

Sure. You can hone what you know you should be doing but you cannot learn what you should be doing. I am also not sure you can always purposefully create the challenges which create interest as well as establish some north star meaningful purpose … which we all know is what someone who elects to follow thrives on.

I always felt like if you created the right attitude your job as a leader was more of a herder than a creator or a motivator. And I always felt like ‘passion’ was overrated <albeit many people commented that they saw moments of passion from me … personally … I thought it was simply moments that I focused on something>.

I absolutely understand that passion is contagious but I always worried that passion can easily fade. I always felt like I owed people who elected to follow more than passion.

When your employees sense that you have a deeper conviction, not passion, for what you do I always believed they got the sense that what they’re doing is a little more worthwhile. It was not that everyone felt like they were on some path towards something bigger but rather they were permitted some moments in which maybe they could not only be better versions of themselves but also maybe, just possibly with a little luck & fate, be part of something greater than ‘oneself’.

I don’t think I was, or am, a particularly humble individual … but I certainly was always humbled that someone, even one person, chose to follow my lead.

And I know I read somewhere that being humble in business doesn’t equate to not taking credit for your work or ideas but rather taking responsibility for your mistakes as well as the mistakes of your team … and acknowledging when someone following you can do something better than you.

Well.

With that definition I guess I could attach ‘humble’ to me but it does not wear well. I think it is just responsible leadership and it doesn’t need any label.

Leadership is certainly not for the faint of heart. Responsibility is always a burden … and if you are responsible for people the burden increases … and … if you are responsible for people who have actually CHOSEN to follow you … well … the burden increases exponentially. But that ‘not for the faint of heart’ is not really courage … it’s more about some fashion of fearlessness. I am pretty sure I wasn’t a particularly great leader. But what I did do is breed a sense of fearlessness in those who followed me.

In the end.

I can really only say one thing.

If you want to lead … you do what you do … you have some strong conviction and attitude <beyond ‘perfection’> … and if people follow they follow. I imagine at some point I said … well … fuck it. I am going to live the way I want to live Life … live business the way I want to live business … and if that mean I am leading? Great.

If it means some people follow? Great.

If it means some people think I am full of shit ? Not so great … but I will live with it.

If it means some people will run away from where I am going? Also not so great … but as long as they don’t think I am fucking nuts … I can live with it.

I did everything in my power, every minute of everyday to insure anyone who elected to follow me never regretted that decision. And I never regretted that choice nor the responsibility that came along with it.

But what I really learned, and know, is that having followers who have chosen to follow you, while humbling, is the best & greatest burden you can have.

Why?

Because one of the hardest things in the world to do is to find people with the same intentions that you have. And when you do? Whew. That is the reason you lead. It is maybe the best part of leadership.

“We cannot cram the embryonic world of tomorrow into yesterday’s conventional cubbyholes.

Nor are the orthodox attitudes or moods appropriate.”

–

Alvin Toffler

=============

Finnish educator Sahlberg shrugs.

“There’s no word for accountability in Finnish.

Accountability is something that is left when responsibility has been subtracted.”

=========================

“Real winners do not compete.”

Samuli Paronen

====================

So.

We talk about accountability a lot these days. And for some odd reason it always seems to get tied to ‘responsibility’ in that it shows proof you have been responsible.

For some reason, even though I do like some accountability measurements, I have always struggled with quantifying responsibility.

I do believe Life demands you to be accountable for a variety of things and I do believe Life demands constant relentless accountable moments … but responsibility, to me, is either something you assume as a duty or … well … responsibility <assuming I can ever have responsibility for responsibility>.

But beyond my belief the rest of America wields accountability like club.

It is the watchword of today’s culture. It almost seems like society believes if we have enough accountability measurements in place we can actually force accountability.

This seems ass backwards to me.

It seems to me that we would be much better off teaching responsibility and then accountability almost becomes unnecessary.

Well. that may be one of the most un-American thoughts I have ever shared.

Which made me think about how we got to this absurd place with regard to accountability because, honestly, my sense is that we Americans haven’t always been this way.

And I also thought that there had to be some root foundational attitude that was driving it.

That said.

Here are some thoughts.

America has always had an uneasy relationship with competition and winning. Swinging back & forth between winning is everything to everyone wins.

In my opinion this is all grounded in America’s ethos of “doing.”

From day one the pilgrims and Indians were aligned with doing. Some people called it survival but survival can take on a variety of forms and ours was an adventuresome version of grabbing the bull by the horns and just doing shit.

Initially this came to fruition in the form of agriculture.

There was no competition. There was no winning. There was simply everyone doing. That didn’t mean there were contests of skills but those skills being measured for winners and losers were not based on productivity but rather … well … a skill.

<jumping several decades>

And then we crashed into the industrial revolution where doing was measured by output. Winning and success became more competitively quantifiable.

<jumping several decades>

And then we decided that if measurement was good in manufacturing … what the hell … everyone and everything should be measured. We assumed people were responsibe but measured with an intent to … well … compare & contrast winners and losers of responsible people.

<jumping several decades>

And then we ran into the really uncomfortable thought <which the founding pilgrims most likely would have been horrified by> that we … uhm … shouldn’t assume everyone would be responsible so we created an entire industry of “accountability & measurement.” <note: I could argue this was the beginning of the general unraveling of trust and ‘fairness’>.

<jumping several decades>

This all then got even more complicated <and exacerbated the situation> when we created “non making shit industries” or entire industries based on servicing people who had money to be serviced as well as entire industries based on managing money <or making $’s off of $’s … not shit that is actually made>.

Therefore, not having any tangible shit to assess doing we crafted a tangled web of ‘accountability’ measures to … well … measure the intangible winners and losers <and then even compared the value of a tangible doer against an intangible doer>.

Suffice it to say that while you could haggle over some of my decades everything is grounded in doing and attempting to measure, or create winners & losers, the ‘doing population.’

But I imagine my main point is that the origins of doing were inextricably tied to responsibility.

Everyone assumed equal responsibility therefore the doing need not be measured and the doers need not be measured.

I am sure something like accountability was in the backs of some of the leaders minds but the overall sense was responsibility equality need not have milestones or objectives or even ‘mid project assessments.’ The leader viewed what was happening and nudged the underlying sense of responsibility.

Somewhere along the way the output and outcomes and competition measurement began to outweigh teaching ‘principled & responsible behavior.’

We turned the equation around backwards and … well … shoved accountability up everyone’s ass.

It seems to me in my pea like brain that we have things out of whack.

And I will not suggest America be anything but American.

We like to just do shit.

And we do like winners & losers.

But it seems to me that we also like fair competition and we truly like beating the best. And if that is true then we should seek to apply accountability to fairness.

As in if you want to preserve American competitiveness the country has to prepare not just some of its population well, but all of its population well.

This benefits society, benefits all players in the game <the best have to up their game because even the non best get better> and it benefits America’s competitive place globally.

No one should be left behind. All should be able to compete at their best.

You can still have winners & losers.

And I imagine you can still compete if you want.

But I could argue, and would argue, that if you did this then all the wacky accountability crap we weave into business & life would be diminished significantly.

We could focus less on accountability and more on just doing shit.

Toffler did not say the following with regard to what I just offered but the words resonate:

“These changes are cumulative that they add up to a giant transformation in the way we live, work, play, and think, and that a sane and desirable future is possible.

In short, what follows begins with the premise that what is happening now is nothing less than a global revolution, a quantum jump in history.”

<Alvin Toffler: The Third Wave>

Americans are consistently obsessed with tracking, testing, improvement measurement and fostering competition. We obsess over these things as if we can build a matrix of certain buttons we can push to actually foster this behavior.

By the way … none of those things foster independence, independent thinking or individual responsibility. All they do is foster pain avoidance or reward pleasure.

Shock me enough times and I will start doing even the most abhorrent behaviors just to avoid the shock.

It seems to me we would be better off as a country and society of we actually encouraged people to just do shit the right way because … well … it feel good to do it right and do it to the best of their abilities <EVEN if their best is not THE best>.

I know a lot of this sounds absolutely whack to many Americans.

Aspects of what I am sharing is so far out of our DNA I imagine some people are just laughing.

But I don’t want to change our DNA. I just want to activate the DNA that made us who and what we are.

The first settlers didn’t need accountability.

And for many years we didn’t need extreme accountability measurements and tests.

Our DNA was ‘just do it’ and a responsibility to just ‘do shit.’

We don’t talk about this issue often except maybe some of the education reform people. But I believe more of us should be talking about this beyond education … for business, for athletics, for … well … everything.

Here is one thing I know for sure.

We need to think about some changes in how we do things. And we should be thinking about ALL things … even the things we currently find “essential to the way we do things.”

Many people will disagree with me but, in my mind, accountability is one.

Just think about it. Think about what I wrote. It just seems like we have arrived at our current state of ‘how we view accountability’ through a variety of smaller type decisions and have inevitably fostered the creation of a Frankenstein.

But. That’s me.

Which permits me to close with one last Toffler thought:

Two apparently contrasting images of the future grip the popular imagination today. Most people to the extent that they bother to think about the future at all … assume the world they know will last indefinitely. They find it difficult to imagine a truly different way of life for themselves, let alone a totally new civilization. Of course they recognize that things are changing. But they assume today’s changes will somehow pass them by and that nothing will shake the familiar economic framework and political structure. They confidently expect the future to continue the present.

This straight-line thinking comes in various packages. At one level it appears as an unexamined assumption lying behind the decisions of businessmen, teachers, parents, and politicians. At a more sophisticated level it comes dressed up hi statistics, computerized data, and forecasters jargon.

Either way it adds up to a vision of a future world that is essentially “more of the same.”

Being a boy is … well … being a boy. We do things boys do. We say things boys need to say as we scrum our way thru youth trying to insure we don’t end up on the bottom of the scrum. And along the way we say and do things that, looking back, we are not proud of.

Yet.

We justify it in our heads as ‘we were just boys and that is what boys do … need to do … in order to survive youth’ <without being at the bottom of the scrum>.

That said.

I saw a video … a 5 minute video <worth watching every minute> … and the line that stood out to me above all? “one thing leads to another. Stop it before ….”

This may be one of the most powerful public service announcement ads I have ever seen.

Ever.

And I have seen a shitload in my life.

I imagine it is powerful because parts of it are … well … me. Me as a boy. And the part of youth where boys are boys.

Not rape.

Not hitting girls physically.

But the verbal hitting.

The hitting with words and thoughts and … well … just hitting their esteem and sense of self.

The time in Life where little boys are little boys who say and do seemingly little things … which can ultimately have much bigger repercussions than little boys can ever envision in their little lives.

“I know you will protect me from lions, tigers, guns, cars or even sushi without even thinking about the danger to your own life.

But dear Daddy, I will be born a girl.

Please do everything you can so that won’t stay the greatest danger of all.”

It suggests the slow unraveling of behind the scenes of the Life of an otherwise well educated independent woman … all because of threads tugged at a young age.

It suggests not that women are to blame, or blameless, just that boys play a role … and that the responsibility of being male do not begin when … well … maybe we are old enough to know better but much much earlier.

It is simple. And it is not simple. That is Life.

And, yet, here is the simplest thought that any parent, any father, can teach their son from day one … little things truly do matter and … well … more often than not … one thing can lead to another.

All that said.

One last thought.

As youtube does … in the right hand column they showcase other videos you may want to watch. One caught my eye. It was a “boy’s response to dear daddy.”

Here was the summary written by the poster:

Stop jokes to stop rape, social justice warriors really are idiots.#DearDaddy is another in a long line of feminist propaganda that demonises boys

Uhm.

Ok.

The video itself reflects on the fact that even young boys face challenges. Here is my problem. And it is a big problem with the young man who issued this false narrative against ‘feminist propaganda.’

The Dear Daddy public service announcement did not demonize boys … it highlighted responsibility for actions. And that doesn’t preclude the fact that there will be other instances of lack of responsibility which could affect other people … boys included.

I get angry … okay … maybe frustrated.

For sometimes people think this is some type of competition for who has it worse. Or who is victimized the most. This is not a competition. Flowers do not compare themselves. Issues are issues not to be compared.

Dear Daddy is not created in some vacuum by ‘idiotic social warriors’ but rather states a real thought that little things matter.

Dear Daddy is not some feminist propaganda but rather a reminder that words can matter and you should assume some responsibility for what you say and how you treat others … not just girls & young women.

I wanted to sit this young man down after watching his video and say “you are missing the point because you feel like your issue is more important … this is not a competition.”

It is about assuming your responsibility for your portion of some shittiness.

=========== Dear Daddy ===========

This PSA from Care Norway, the Norwegian branch of charity Care International, has gone viral in Scandinavia — and you’ll see why if you watch.

The five-minute film is a powerful and disturbing story, narrated from the point of view of an unborn baby girl, as a “Dear Daddy” letter. The girl explains how, as she grows up, boys will start to treat her badly; they’ll call her “whore” and “bitch” and c***” in high school, she’ll be raped at 21 and even her eventual fiance, a “nice boy” with a good job, will subject her to abuse.

The point of this is not just to highlight how awful men are, however — it’s to warn the father-to-be that his own behavior may effectively condone harmful actions in others. By not calling people out for using sexist language and making jokes about women, he’s part of a culture that encourages abuse — one that could have dangerous repercussions on his own child.

The Swedish version of the ad has been viewed over five million times since it launched in early December. It was directed by Jakob Ström through Tangrystan Productions, for Norwegian agency Schjaerven.

Mike, you know better than many what an unhappy home is and what it can do to others. Now you have a chance to make it come out the way it should.

There is no greater happiness for a man than approaching a door at the end of a day knowing someone on the other side of that door is waiting for the sound of his footsteps.

Love,
Dad

P.S. You’ll never get in trouble if you say “I love you” at least once a day.”

—

Ronald Reagan <letter to his son>

===

Happy Father’s day.

Bear with me while I speak specifically on fathers & sons.

Well.

If anyone asks, I am honest and will say I had a shitty relationship with my father <but I had a relationship with my grandfather who I still call the greatest man I have ever known>.

I own my 50% of the shittiness.

I have to assume if my father were still alive he would most likely own his 50%.

Regardless.

I would have been a difficult son for any parent, any father, but particularly difficult for this particular father.

That said. Let me state the obvious … parenting, in general, is messy. Nothing appears in a nice straight line of a cohesive ‘cause & affect’ and while the playbook may appear effective for one child it is a disaster for another.

I imagine the problem is that it is never quite possible to always get it right with your kid.

And, maybe worse, you may actually be getting it right but you may not know until decades later.

And … combine that with the grind of managing the daily mundane, but essential, responsibility aspects and weighted with everyday hopeful expectations … and you have a parenting recipe that is dubious at best. Suffice it to say … assuming you know what you are doing is right or working is … well … if there was ever a topic to embody the phrase “assume makes an ass out of you & me” — parenting is it.

Every time you assume something it will get challenged.

That is why talking is important.

With trial & error <which is basically what parenting is> a consistent feedback loop is kind of essential. And this is where I think fathers may have an inherent challenge.

In single Life that doesn’t really have any dire consequences <just maybe some unfortunate consequences>.

As a father … well … lack of communication and actual talking with a son can have some dire consequences.

I while I am sure there are a shitload of real research driven factoids to back up my perception that guys aren’t particularly good at talking I kinda think that is irrelevant.

Whether we men suck at talking or not, it is one of the responsibilities of being a dad.

You gotta listen and talk with your son.

Why?

Because that is what they need.

There is nothing … and I mean nothing … more important to a young person than knowing their dad is listening. And to show that you, unfortunately, have to talk.

The talking … the actual words, whether you get them right or not <and most likely you get most of them wrong>, is what matters.

It shows you are trying.

It shows you care.

It shows you may not know everything, you may not understand everything but you want to.

It shows … well … it shows your discomfort which, in an odd way, shows you are willing to do the hard things to do the right thing.

And the dad talking, and for some reason I am going to suggest that sometimes it does matter if it is the man talking, provides something just a little different.

Any parent provides some wisdom, some empathy, some reality and harsh truth. A mother’s perspective on all those aspects is a little different than a father’s perspective and each perspective is further driven by the personality and character of the individual <regardless of the father or mother perspective>.

As a guy myself I will admit: the desire to know your father actually listens and actually hears what you have to say and think is … well … it kinda matters.

In fact … it REALLY matters.

Without it you end up anchored to nothing. Or maybe better said you seek an anchor elsewhere. And even if you do find an anchor it is … and will always be … less than the anchor your father could provide.

All children seek this anchor, particularly in their teens.

Most are not seeking to be saved or to find all the answers they just seek some foundation and something solid during the years where little seems solid.

Dads do not have to be perfect <although the moment you realize your father is not a superhero kinda sucks> but in their imperfect way they have to find some connection.

Dads just have to assume the sense of “Life guide” responsibility.

And you know what? This is actually harder than you would think. I mean … how many people truly love what they do and have no regrets with regard to “where do I want to go and be?”

<not many>

And, yet, a son doesn’t want a dad unsure of who & what he is … they want a lighthouse for Life. And that is what pretty much every father WANTS to provide.

Simplistically raising a boy permits fathers the opportunity to be a total man … strong, powerful and caring all the while balanced by a desire that “they get it right maybe better than I did.” More complicated is the fact that being a total man is not the easiest thing to be without taking into account a son … let alone when you have a son watching you and listening to you.

Anyway.

Here is the good news for dads <some research>.

Sons also seem to push fathers to be more productive.

Studies of Americans and Germans born after 1950 found that having a child of either sex spurred fathers to bring home more bacon, but the difference between a son and a daughter was considerable: nearly 110 hours a year for Germans and around 70 hours for Americans. Lundberg, who has spent years trying to untangle the economics of child gender and parental behaviour, suggests this gap was a sign that fathers were keener to provide for families with sons. Parents of sons seem not just to earn more but also to spend more. An analysis of American consumer expenditure data from the 1990s found that married couples with one son aged 18 or younger spent 4-7% more on housing than those with a daughter, and consumed more of everything from plane tickets to meals in restaurants.

I am not sure most father’s feel any inordinate additional pressure as a parent when they have a son … but I would imagine they assume a certain male responsibility aspect <which is hard for me to put a specific finger on>.

The research kind of helps me make that point in possibly a roundabout way.

Sons push fathers a little differently than daughters do.

And, that said <assuming you buy into that concept>, fathers respond to that push in a variety of ways … some good and some bad.

And within that aspect is created the dynamic in which fathers and sons flourish or fail.

Anyway.

On fathers day … a father is a father to all his children. But today … as a man myself … I reflected upon fathers and sons.

Here is about the only thing I know for sure with regard to fathers & sons.

Talking is good.

Lack of talking is bad.

So maybe my point this father’s day is sons pick up the phone and talk with your father … and fathers maybe pick up the phone and talk with your son.

Just ask how things are going.

That’s how talking begins. That’s where father & son relationships begin.

Happy father’s day to all my father friends. I am fortunate enough to know, and be friends with, some of the best fathers in the world. Many have shown me the father I wish I would have been.

A note about listicles: So we know a lot of people hate listicles and associate them with cheap, low-quality, traffic-driving, link-bait articles. But here’s the thing—a list is a great format for an article, and a format I was using on my old blog almost 10 years ago. In fact, my first listicle, 19 Things I Don’t Understand, was published in August of 2005, a year before Buzzfeed was even founded.

Then, over the last few years, I watched in horror as one of my favorite formats decided to prostitute itself all over the internet as the default format for lazy articles.

Anyway the point is, A) I was doing listicles before they were cool, and B) A list headline doesn’t mean it can’t be a high-quality article, so C) Wait But Why will make a listicle when it’s the best format for that post, and don’t be mad at us cause it’s not what it looks like.

This I a rant on listicles <all those articles you find online using simplistic lists to share what I will loosely call ‘knowledge’>.

I decided to write about listicles because I just had maybe my 100th meeting where someone at the table leaned forward and said with an expert tone “young people don’t read long articles and we need to offer lists to engage them.”

My head explodes over this simplistic drivel.

Listicles certainly have a role but creating a list for the sake of having a list is bullshit. Creating a list because you are too lazy to learn to write an article or a thought piece is bullshit.

Write your content.

If it is better delivered in a list than deliver it that way. On the other hand … if your content is better delivered as a story, with chapters and a moral <or dénouement and climax> then … for gods sake … deliver it that way.

The whole idea that young people do not read longer content is ludicrous.

They sit for 3 hour movies <Hunger Games>, they sit for 5 hours of Wii, they sit for 2 hours of texting … suffice it to say they will sit for as long as they are engaged an interested.

Next.

I could argue <and I will> that lists have attained the status of meaningless useless shit articles on social media channels. This is because some social media expert assholes <a lot of them in fact> have been simplistically recommending everything you should do online should be in a list format. Somehow they have convinced everyone that this is the format to deliver all content.

That is just fucking crazy.

Imagine if every movie director and every book author followed the same rule of delivering their content <okay … don’t … it would be the hell of monotony>.
Look.

I don’t argue that a list can be an effective way to deliver content and I am not opposed to offering up my content in a listicle format <although I will admit my contrarian attitude makes me slightly nauseated when I do so> but … well … think about what I just wrote.

I don’t decide to create a listicle I decide to create engaging content and then decide the best way to engage a reader to that content.

And you know what? This strategy is effective regardless of what age group you are targeting.

Interesting is interesting.

Engaging is engaging.

And attention spans will consistently expand or contract depending on what is interesting and engaging <as they have since the dawn of time>.

So please, please, stop with the listicle advice. It is misguided <I patted myself on the back for holding back on calling it bullshit advice … which was my knee jerk thought>.

The False Narrative of Writing On line Content

Write good content.

The format you deliver it can help, or hurt it, in terms of engagement but ultimately the format cannot save bad content and good content can be delivered in a variety of formats and be effective.

And as a quasi-writer myself … I would like to think good content will be read regardless of the format. That said … I will write in a listicle format kicking & screaming. And maybe with that attitude I will be inspired to write such engaging content that i don’t need a frickin’ listicle.